The Jazz Man used to be a hardcore supporter of Israel. Well times are changing, as he moves more to the Left he is beginning to distance himself from that nation. Recently Obama criticized Israel when he was in Indonesia. This was disturbing as he clearly did it to gain favors from the Islamic world. Chuck was silent about this and didn’t mention it.

Eric Cantor reportedly told Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu that the New Republican majority, will be a check on Obama’s anti-Israel policies. Chuck instead of standing by Cantor’s support of Israel, sides with Obama.

The Jazz Man was silent on Obama’s anti-Israel rant in Indonesia, but condemns Cantor’s support of Israel. It’s only a matter of time before Chuck does a why I broke with Israel piece. He’s laying the seeds down.

Somebody also needs to explain the difference between talking to the PM of a staunch ally and schmoozing with a terror-supporting dictator who has been on our diplomatic blacklist (under both Dem and GOP presidents) for years.

Wow, talk about thin gruel! This statement by Cantor is very generic, and hardly the makings of treason, unless I’m missing something: “Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington,” the readout continued. “He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”

I just mentioned on the other thread that he talks about how he criticized Nancy Pelosi for her trip to Syria at the time, but I think the question many would have is whether he would criticize her 2007 visit today if he had it to do over.

Only a fool would think the Cantor and Pelosi situations are even remotely similar, to wit; the United States DID NOT have diplomatic relations with Syria at the time of Pelosi’s visit, and Syria is on the official list of states that sponsor terror ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism ). Another epic fail, courtesy of Charles Johnson.

BINGO!
If CJ ever read anything other than canned leftist slogans, and if he could look up “Syria-US relations,” he would see that the big diplomatic rifts occurred in 1979, 1996, and after 9/11. So this has nothing to do with REPUBLICAN policy.
Er, he does know that Carter and Clinton were Democrats, doesn’t he?

I guess it would be thinking too deeply for Chuckles’ little brain to figure out that there is a difference between underminging a President at war in the theater of the battlefield like Dick Durbin (D-al Qaeda) and others, and assuring a long-time ally that all is not lost just because we fucked up and elected and anti-American anti-Semite as President. Chuckles might draw a further conclusion that the American people issued a “restraining order” against said Administration last week in part because of the insane foreign policy he has been following. But that would require a brain cell unaddled by meth or whatever the shit is he is taking to get high…

There are several levels of hypocracy here. I distinctly remember Chuck remarking that SanFranNan should be charged under the Logan Act, which by the way he did not refer to as the seldom used dusty Logan Act at the time. Secondly, what Nancy did was to conduct actual diplomacy which was contrary to the foreign Policy position of the Presidential Administration. She gave aid and comfort to America’s enemies, and sought to force a change in our Foreign Policy. Eric Cantor gave a pep speach by repeating the blindingly obvious to a foreign leader. This is not trying to change or conduct a separate Foreign Policy.

So he equates Cantor’s support of a long time ally like Israel to Pelosi’s visit to Syria, an enemy and terrorist sponsor. Another major fail for Johnson, who, if I recall correctly, condemned Pelosi’s visit at the time as treacherous.

It’s official, there is no difference between a state sponsor of terror like Syria and Israel according to Chuck, they are simply “foreign powers”. Is it me, or is he starting to sound like Pat Buchanan here? : Charles Sat, Nov 13, 2010 1:25:17pm replyquote

* 0
* down
* up
* report

re: #94 BryanS

As well she shouldn’t have. Syria is not exactly an ally like Israel is. Doesn’t that make a difference to you?

“I’d say no, it doesn’t make a difference. Openly saying you’re going to support a foreign power when their policies conflict with official US policy, for partisan reasons, sucks. Not to put too fine a point on it. Ally or not. “

The thing that I find striking is the idea that to concept of the “Loyal Opposition,” that will oppose the administration while supporting our historic allies, is a new and essentially racist idea. The party out of power ALWAYS does this, not just in America, but in all real Democratic States.

An excellent point. The concept of the two party system seems to be lost on him. Apparently treason has been defined down and now saying one’s party will ‘serve as a check’ on the other party is worthy of prosecution.

Wait a minute. I thought the “loony right wing base” were a bunch of antisemitic hate-mongers (weren’t we told that the old man that shot up the holocaust museum was a wingnut?). Are they now being accused of loving Israel? I wonder if anyone over there mentioned that apparent contradiction…

Did any of the cult followers bother to point out that Congress is Constitutionally supposed to act as a check / balance to the President? You know, three co-equal separate branches of Government?? What a bunch of morons lead by the biggest moron!

It’s a little more subtle, but you’re right. When Pelosi was running to Damascus, that alternative diplomacy; trying to negotiate alternative deals to the administration’s dealings. That was wrong, because it undercut the administration’s negotiating hand. This is simply the congress asserting its right to define a line that the executive branch can’t step over prior to any negotiation. There’s no attempt to undermine anything; this is out in the sunshine saying that Jerusalem isn’t on the table, as far as the congress is concerned.

The dirty little truth that nobody wants to come out and admit is that these negotiations are all a sham anyway, because the PA not only won’t bargain in good faith, they can’t. They don’t have an internal consensus that gives them anything to bargain with. All Cantor is doing is recognizing that fact, and making sure that the US DoS doesn’t bargain away something that isn’t theirs to give in exchange for a peace that’s impossible to achieve.

No, that point did not elude me. i just felt the need to back up a step but those cultists will never even think about it because, for them, like all leftists, the constitution doesn’t mean what it says but whatever they WANT it to mean.

I must say that I agree with what Mr. Paul Revere has said and what Iron Fist has said.
When it suits him, Johnson “believes” that criticizing the POTUS is equal to or tantamount to treason. Well, when it’s Obama who is POTUS, anyway. When it’s someone else, who is Center-Right, of course, criticizing the POTUS and carrying out your OWN foreign policy is only being “honorable”.
Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds; intellectual honesty is that which Johnson will never be accused. I’d bet money that Johnson truly regrets that he exposed Rather, CBS and “60 Minutes” for forging those TANG memos and indirectly assisting Bush in beating Kerry in 2004.